The "leftcom position", more accurately the communist position, unchanged over 180 years, can be understood by reading this party text.
If you have any questions about it, I will try to answer.
The "leftcom position", more accurately the communist position, unchanged over 180 years, can be understood by reading this party text.
If you have any questions about it, I will try to answer.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
:lenin-shining:
Leftcoms : Support and agree with Lenin's actions and texts
Idiots who get their politics from memes and don't even read the texts they link - "haha le infantile disorder " :blob-no-thoughts:
Removed by mod
The Russian Revolution, for a few years at least. But successful only in the sense of being able to sieze state power, not in the sense of being able to transform social relations, as that is only possible with a world revolution.
If by "you people", you mean in the context of people who belong to a class party that can be called Marxist then, it is :
a) Preserving the original doctrine against opportunists, falsifiers, modernizers etc
b) Waiting for the right historical conditions.
If by proletarians who consider themselves "leftcoms" in general, I can't speak for them. Some may be organizing labor. Some may be doing nothing. I dunno
Lenin was the Russian revolutionary that overthrew the Tsar. Are you seriously trying to argue that Lenin, who explicitly condemned and even wrote a book condemning "left-communism", is a fucking "leftcom"?
Once again, explain to me: How is not adapting your ideas to match material reality, instead endlessly and relentlessly attacking every and all socialist projects supposed to help the cause of the global proletarian revolution?
holy shit lmao ok just sit on your couch forever then espousing your "pure" ideology ok ok man
Leftcom : Enemy Unknown. You don't even know the positions of leftcom and you are asking me to explain why my positions are wrong. Lmfao
Most of the attacks on the communist position, disguised as "defending socialist countries" or "adapting to new conditions", were resolved by Marx and Engels themselves. For things like "Socialism in One country", "socialism as understood as govt ownership", the criticism of opportunism, the criticism of "AES", you can read Dialogue with Stalin. Link - https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/amadeo-bordiga-dialogue-with-stalin/
I will warn you, I fully expect you to ask me to summarize it rather than you actually putting in time to read something, so I will tell in advance that I will not do so.
Not a leftcom position to "do nothing". I am speaking in the context of the party, which I have already explained does a lot of things, like clarifying their positions, preserving the doctrine etc. And in the time of right historical conditions, it is the party that has the program and takes leadership.
In the context of individual proletarians, the most useful things you can do are to form associations with other workers, be open and loud about your views and aims, read the original Marxist doctrine, engage in class struggle at the workplace (which is always risky and dangerous, due to risk of losing livelihoods or even lives), and of course, also contribute to party work, as long as you have first fully assimilated the communist position.
If "leftcom" is so good, then why isn't it the dominant strand of socialism? Why is it that Marxist-Leninism, and not this demented abomination called "left-communism" is dominant? Why are "left-communists" so unsuccessful? Have "left-communists" even tried to do anything? Have they ever tried to start a revolution? Have they ever tried to campaign for support amongst the populace? Have they actually affected the world in any way apart from their mindless criticisms of all that exists and will exist?
If "communism" is so good, why isn't it the dominant strand of political thought? If the correctness of a doctine is determined by the number of its adherents, then we must all become Christians.
For the rest of your questions, they are resolved by reading Marx/Engels.
that is just so phenomenally stupid in so many ways i cannot even start to explain
How does Capitalism in one country affect Socialism in another?
How is Socialism somehow restricted from progressing due to the existence of a Capitalist country?
How does the frog existing affect the fish?
Does it matter if the frog is in another pond or not? Does it matter if the frog is half a world away? Does it matter if the pond the fish lacks frogs at all but frogs exist somewhere in the world?
Clearly you haven't understood the communist position, because it is one of the basic concepts that socialism is only possible with a world revolution, something explained by Marx in 1846. If you want an elaborated answer, you can always read the original texts. I won't explain in a forum post length and format, as that will only lead to more misunderstanding.
Was the Soviet Union not socialist? Is China not socialist? Do you have basic cognitive abilities? Have you ever touched grass before?
No.
Ok then tell me, how the fuck can the mere existence of a capitalist country affect socialism? Does it matter if humans also exist on another planet and they are capitalist? How will that affect anything? Clearly, you are just dogmatic, as you refuse to state any points and instead defer all responsibility of argument.
With regards to "doing something", how many mutual aid groups, soup kitchens, public healthcare programs, peasant guerillas and nationalized brick factories would it take to achieve communism, tell me?
With regards to "doing something", how many hours of sitting on your couch snickering at successful socialist projects will it take to achieve communism, tell me?